Wes,
You are obviously unaware of the document at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/java/why-gnu-packages.txt
Allow me to quote from it:
"There is no measurable benefit of using org.gnu instead of gnu. I refuse
to be concerned over anybody who might use gnu as a package prefix without
co-ordinating with gnu.org - that's their problem, not ours."
What does the statement "..that's there problem not ours." say about
arrogance and ownership of 'GNU'?
Please take the time to respond to this question because I really would like
to hear an explanation of your statement "..I don't think anyone is arguing
that the abstract, conceptual entity known as the Free Software Foundation
owns, or even CAN own, such an abstract, conceptual entity as a namespace --
in fact quite the opposite."
Regards,
TJL
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Thomas J Lukasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Chris Toshok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Prasad, Ganesh C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, September 12, 1999 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Congratulations
>Thomas J Lukasik wrote:
>
>> it certainly **is** arrogant to think that they own the three letters
'GNU'.
>
>How can anyone own anything that's just a bunch of symbols? A word, say,
or
>perhaps a computer program? A programming language? I don't think anyone
is
>arguing that the abstract, conceptual entity known as the Free Software
>Foundation owns, or even CAN own, such an abstract, conceptual entity as a
>namespace -- in fact quite the opposite.
>
>I'm for using gnu.* because it makes opaque the irrelevance of ownership.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wes
>
>
